<quoted text>If sexuality does not matter, then why should two men or two women be denied the same rights as a man and woman?

Look up "sexuality". Look up "gender". Examine the differences. See? Easy. They are not the same thing. You are confusing the former with the latter. Obfuscation again. Semantic hopscotch. Literary leapfrog. Identification issues. Detail dementia.

<quoted text>Why are you deflecting ? What does incest have to do with the subject of marriage? How will same sex marriage harm your marriage, life, life style or children?

You REALLY are confused. Marriage is an institution that is closed to siblings, and wrongly, too. They should have equality. Don't you agree? Where is their ability to enjoy the same rights as any other American? Answer that, if you can do so, without twisting. Brother and sister, or brother and brother, for that matter. Point blank question. Where is their marriage? Out in the field, getting soaked by the "You don't count" storm? Who says that they do not rate? YOU?

<quoted text>It would seem that this issue has been flip-flopping a lot."From the enactment of legislation in 1971 to replace gendered pronouns with gender-neutral pronouns, until 1977, California Civil Code § 4100 defined marriage as "a personal relation arising out of a civil contract, to which the consent of the parties capable of making that contract is necessary." This definition was uniformly interpreted as including only opposite-sex partners, but, because of worries that the language was unclear, Assembly Bill No. 607 was proposed and later passed to "prohibit persons of the same sex from entering lawful marriage." The act amended the Civil Code to define marriage as "a personal relation arising out of a civil contract between a man and a woman, to which the consent of the parties capable of making that contract is necessary."[17] Since 1994, this language is found in § 300 of the Family Code""City officials in San Francisco claimed that although the 2004 marriages were prohibited by state law, the state law was invalidated by the Equal Protection Clause. The mayor echoed this view, permitting the marriages because he believed the state law was unconstitutional. However, legislators and groups opposing same-sex marriages quickly reacted, filing a suit and requesting a court order to prevent the city from performing the ceremonies. Additionally, the California state agency that records marriages stated that altered forms, including any marriage licenses issued to same-sex couples, would not be registered. The legal validity of the marriages was tested in the courts, and the marriages were ultimately voided by the state Supreme Court.""As of June 16, 2008, gay couples can get married in California.The change in California marriage laws is due to the 5/15/08 California Supreme Court ruling that "the right to marry in California extends equally to all, gay and straight alike."Source: Bob Egelko, "State's top court strikes down marriage ban"From differing sources. Please, do not assume that I have not read up on the subject. It makes you look silly. It has not always been legal, hence, it was illegal, and is being bandied about. So, these rights were not always present for the gays, making my statement correct. These "rights" have been granted, then removed again. now, it is in flux.

You can take your argument up with the state of California that currently legally recognizes 18,000 same sex marriages. But I expect prop 8 will be overturned before you can get a hearing to challenge them, which will make your effort to have them not recognize those marriages moot.

<quoted text>No, it's YOUR opinion. You don't give any reasons WHY you think polygamy deserves the same respect and consideration. You just think whatever bullshit comes out of your mouth is valid because YOU said it.val·id (vld)adj.1. Well grounded; just: a valid objection.2. Producing the desired results; efficacious: valid methods.3. Having legal force; effective or binding: a valid title.4. Logica. Containing premises from which the conclusion may logically be derived: a valid argument.b. Correctly inferred or deduced from a premise: a valid conclusion.

Oh, child, of course he has. Did you get all glass-eyed when the posts about the irrelevance of monogamy went by?

<quoted text>every person that commits is commiting a crimeevery person that drives over the speed limit is commiting a crimeit is a wide range, don’t assume too muchMy desire to secure our borders has nothing whatsoever to do with color, culture, race, of food preference. Notice our largest border is the least secure, the one to the north

<quoted text>You can take your argument up with the state of California that currently legally recognizes 18,000 same sex marriages. But I expect prop 8 will be overturned before you can get a hearing to challenge them, which will make your effort to have them not recognize those marriages moot.But right now, they do,California 18,000Rock Hudson zip

But then, these words, right here: "But right now, they do," grant validity to these words, right here: "So, these rights were not always present for the gays, making my statement correct. These "rights" have been granted, then removed again. now, it is in flux.". It's all about the context of the timeline. Not always means that they had to have been granted, at a time when it was not legal. Making me correct. No "rights" have been denied, they were wrongly bestowed. That is the only wrong going on, here. The 18,000 need to be annulled. Then, we'll be back on track. Where we belong.

Tell me when this thread is updated:

Add your comments below

Please note by submitting this form you acknowledge that you have read the Terms of Service and the comment you are posting is in compliance with such terms. Be polite.
Inappropriate posts may be removed by the moderator. Send us your feedback.